Controversial Opinion: 5e isn't great for CRPG?

[lazarusblack]

First off, this isn't a thread to knock Larian.

I know some people are going to come in hot, right out the gate having read the title and I'm sure to receive an abundance of clowns. I humbly accept your scorn (and the points)

But I'm asking for a genuine conversation and not just ♥♥♥♥ flinging.

I'm generally finding many of the 5e mechanics as Larian has interpreted them, underwhelming. I wasn't much of a fan of 5e anyway, so it's entirely possible I'm heavily biased here and so I'd love to hear some advocates make a compelling case for why 5e is better IN CRPG FORMAT than previous editions. I recognise it has benefits in terms of table top, expecially for new comers and those that aren't as invested in the meta.

But while I'm enjoying playing BG3, I'm finding certain aspects of the game... not good. That isn't to say that Larian haven't done something worthwhile with the material but that the material just doesn't have the same impact in CRPG format as perhaps it does in TT.

Just in terms of character development. The whole system feels so empty. I gave up playing a martial class pretty quickly as there really seemed little to decide upon at level up and class progression is pretty binary/boring.

I find myself comparing BG3 and 5e to WoTR and Pathfinder 1st edition which is close to DnD 3.5e and it's hands down a less engaging system. I know it isn't this bad in TT. I mean the same issue exists there, but it isn't as stark as it appears to be here.

There are other examples I could give, but hopefully that's enough to get the conversation going and finding out what other people think.

[Astronimo]

lazarusblack a écrit :

Arsemoloch a écrit :

You are never going to see high budget crpg:s with systems like 3.5 or crapfinder. I do enjoy them but gods stop pretending that those are superior in videogame format, you got these forums full of people who cant even do basic math now imagine them playing spreadsheet simulators.

You only have to learn the meta once. I went into WoTR with a clear idea of what kind of build I wanted. Familiar with feats and skills, I was able to build my characters (and companions) to my own liking. I knew how to prebuff etc. Granted the enemies were way overtuned at times and buffing was essential in the later half. But your given the tools to do what you need too.

So, we are getting into meta territory. So much for a complex system, when it actually ends up in pure math and go to.
If the system has a very strong meta - it's not complex at all. If there are multiple ways of correct builds - it's complex enough.
The way I see old editions, are spreadshits with a headache. Copy paste builds too. So, why bother with that and deleting potential playerbase, instead of using general public friendly 5e and adding homebrew? Gear, especially weapons, have their own unique stuff. Spells are more complex, then it seems from the first sight.
The only thing is the difficulty, more like enemies are dying too fast. But that's just numbers, I don't mind some sort of "Astral" difficulty with health and stats for enemies being boosted by 50% (not abilities, since the affect everything).

[jerrypocalypse]

Khorvale a écrit :

king_of_jamaica a écrit :

Yeah, it doesn't work perfectly for a game, but they had no other option.

It's not like WotC was going to let them make BG3 using 3.5, even though it would have worked way better.

Honestly I doubt Larian would have been able to handle a system of that magnitude considering the level of "homebrew" they had to do just to make 5E work for them

To be fair, both Pathfinder games have plenty of homebrew to make the system work for them too, as do all other D&D video games. It's necessary to make the system work, regardless of edition.

[Wokelander]

jerrypocalypse a écrit :

Khorvale a écrit :

Honestly I doubt Larian would have been able to handle a system of that magnitude considering the level of "homebrew" they had to do just to make 5E work for them

To be fair, both Pathfinder games have plenty of homebrew to make the system work for them too, as do all other D&D video games. It's necessary to make the system work, regardless of edition.

Imagine trying to jank the scope of either Pathfinder game into the DOS2 engine though

[jerrypocalypse]

Khorvale a écrit :

jerrypocalypse a écrit :

To be fair, both Pathfinder games have plenty of homebrew to make the system work for them too, as do all other D&D video games. It's necessary to make the system work, regardless of edition.

Imagine trying to jank the scope of either Pathfinder game into the DOS2 engine though

Seems like the DOS2 engine allows them to do things the Pathfinder games don't, namely using environmental items and doing extra actions like jumping, throwing, etc. Things you can do in tabletop that are lacking from Pathfinder. Each game has their own positives and negatives in relation to the actual tabletop experience.

[Observer]

The place I m at with my group, I only look forward to levelling up mages. There you have a lot of choice regarding what spell you want, but any other classes are just boring.
What I dont need in this game is the dice to be shown, I dont want to click it, I dont want to see it, just do it in the background and show it in the dialogue field like in BG1,2

[maniacal<1>]

It's not controversial at all. Most people can't stand 5e, and those that DO like it do so for it's open-ended flexibility which just does not translate well AT ALL into a video game framework.

As someone who has been tabletop gaming since AD&D, it's the absolute worst ruleset I've played. Even worse than fourth.

[Ruffio]

maniacal<1> a écrit :

It's not controversial at all. Most people can't stand 5e, and those that DO like it do so for it's open-ended flexibility which just does not translate well AT ALL into a video game framework.

As someone who has been tabletop gaming since AD&D, it's the absolute worst ruleset I've played. Even worse than fourth.

Take 5 fresh players that never played d&d before... Start a game as a dm with 4e ruleset..... And you wish for 5e quite fast -)

[Captain Worthy]

Ruffio a écrit :

maniacal<1> a écrit :

It's not controversial at all. Most people can't stand 5e, and those that DO like it do so for it's open-ended flexibility which just does not translate well AT ALL into a video game framework.

As someone who has been tabletop gaming since AD&D, it's the absolute worst ruleset I've played. Even worse than fourth.

Take 5 fresh players that never played d&d before... Start a game as a dm with 4e ruleset..... And you wish for 5e quite fast -)

4th edition does integrate MMO players pretty well though, especially if you have card decks for the class abilities & spells.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

I actually agree. fifth edition was, by the developers own words, design around a roleplay experience with minimal interacts needed for level up and easily non-scaled numbers that stay mostly consistent. That is poison for a cRPG which works extremely well with the more arcane mechanics and allows even grappling rules to become far easier just because of how fast you can run the numbers and rolls. 5e has little of that nor a need for Menus and UI to parse through spells and feats easily. you're not wrong its a poor base for a cRPG

[Wirewing]

Stoibs a écrit :

I need to give Solasta another chance at some point..

I backed the damn thing on Kickstarter but fell off it pretty fast. Never been a fan of systems that make you create your whole party; I perfer the banter and conversations and dialogue as it unfolds from pre-mades :/

All the characters in Solasta are voiced and, depending on the background you choose, may have their own, voiced sidequests. Solasta has a lot more options but, they are working from SRD so they are slightly different in some parts from PHB+.

If you do play, I highly recommend the Unfinished Business mod. Still, without it, it handles 5E better than BG3.

[Stoibs]

Just looked up Unfinished Business, looks like a massive overhaul.
Thanks!

[Merque]

I kinda like it more from a perspective that 3.5 and pathfinder are basically just "who can stack the most modifiers"-game while taking a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ time to buff everything...BUT I think the equipment in 5e / BG3 is boring as hell.

[Sima Marlin]

lazarusblack a écrit :

First off, this isn't a thread to knock Larian.

I know some people are going to come in hot, right out the gate having read the title and I'm sure to receive an abundance of clowns. I humbly accept your scorn (and the points)

But I'm asking for a genuine conversation and not just ♥♥♥♥ flinging.

I'm generally finding many of the 5e mechanics as Larian has interpreted them, underwhelming. I wasn't much of a fan of 5e anyway, so it's entirely possible I'm heavily biased here and so I'd love to hear some advocates make a compelling case for why 5e is better IN CRPG FORMAT than previous editions. I recognise it has benefits in terms of table top, expecially for new comers and those that aren't as invested in the meta.

But while I'm enjoying playing BG3, I'm finding certain aspects of the game... not good. That isn't to say that Larian haven't done something worthwhile with the material but that the material just doesn't have the same impact in CRPG format as perhaps it does in TT.

Just in terms of character development. The whole system feels so empty. I gave up playing a martial class pretty quickly as there really seemed little to decide upon at level up and class progression is pretty binary/boring.

I find myself comparing BG3 and 5e to WoTR and Pathfinder 1st edition which is close to DnD 3.5e and it's hands down a less engaging system. I know it isn't this bad in TT. I mean the same issue exists there, but it isn't as stark as it appears to be here.

There are other examples I could give, but hopefully that's enough to get the conversation going and finding out what other people think.

5e is good for tapletop as it's easy to get in to and to dm. But more complex games need heavy house rouling. Specially late level campaings need a really good dm to stay valid, as well as rules to limit people for using the broken builds.

It's not ideal for game play on pc, though earlier levels it's decent there with good balancing ( Solasta battle system is pretty neat as example).

It's why I like The patfinder games.

Pathfinder first ed is a nightmare for new players to start, but on pc it's still somewhat taunting, but you can find all the info as you level up + all the abilities can be neatly organised and the math does itself.

This allows some very fun builds role play and late game encounters + difficulty tweaking.

5 e is .. still in its core "easy to learn" for pc games. Which makes it less interesting.

[corisai]

Yes, many table-top limitations are atrocities for CRPG.

Best example with magic - direct damage in table-top is nerfed into dust because of poor casual players don't want to be ruined in each fight (true it's boring to do nothing while rest of party is busy fighting). But this is absolutely not a problem for CRPG, when single player control a several characters.

As result whole D&D series turned into hilarious "swords stronger then magic" despite of melee combat mechanics being very primitive and bland too.

[NixAhmose]

If you’re looking at a purely mechanical system, then yeah there’s a lot less depth to it. But that’s not really the appeal of 5e and kinda misses the point as to why 5e became the most successful ttrpg on the market by a significantly large margin. 5e became so popular as it has because the system is so simple that you almost actively have to go out of your way to ♥♥♥♥ up a character build, which in turn makes it easy to just pick, come up with a fun character concept, and get straight to roleplaying.

A big issue with rule systems like 3.5e and Pathfinder is that while they have a lot of depth and customization, the systems are so complex and the difference between an optimized build vs an unoptimized one is so exponentially large that it’s really hard to get in and enjoy the roleplaying elements unless you’re willing to spend hours researching character guides. Pathfinder 1e specifically suffers so much from its optimization problem that actual combat basically stops mattering by level 10-15 since optimized stats have ballooned to such a point where it just becomes a question whose pre-buffed stats are bigger. If you are not willing to spend time researching how to properly optimize your starts or just want to focus on roleplaying interesting character concepts, games like Pathfinder WotR quickly become insufferable to play by level 10 due to these issues.

So, when you look from the perspective of just wanting to make a fun ROLEplaying game first and foremost, that’s what makes 5e such a good system for a crpg. It’s not complex or have that much depth to it, but it doesn’t need to be. The appeal of BG3 is not to be a super complex action game where you have to keep and manage all these complex stats and character build options, it’s about creating interesting and varied roleplaying encounters giving players the tools to tackle them however they want. The faster and easier to understand the tools are for players, the faster Larian can start getting them to real juicy parts of the game.